Clarion Housing Association Limited (202443190)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202443190

Clarion Housing Association Limited

30 September 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to investigate and address the cause of a soot-like substance throughout the property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured joint tenant, with her husband. The landlord is a housing association. The tenancy began in September 2023. The property is a 1-bedroom flat, for people over 55 years old. The property is located within a retirement scheme and comprises 35 properties. The landlord’s records indicate that the resident’s husband had mobility issues.
The first report of a soot-like substance in the kitchen, bathroom and bedroom we have seen, was made by the resident in January 2024. Although we note the resident maintains she first reported this in December 2023. The resident said this may not be good for her health, given her diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The resident’s next-door neighbour reported a similar issue to the landlord around this same time.
The resident and the neighbour submitted joint complaints to the landlord on 19 April 2024 and 7 May 2024 about its handling of their reports of a soot-like substance in their properties. The landlord committed to investigate the cause of this.
The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 14 September 2024 following intervention from us. In summary, the landlord:
1. Noted the resident was dissatisfied:

i. With the way it was managing resolution of the issue.

ii. Because it had changed its position on issuing air purifiers.

iii. Because the soot like substance had caused damage to the resident’s personal belongings.

iv. With its complaint handling.

Acknowledged the resident wanted it to trace and resolve the cause of the soot-like substance in the property, clean the bathroom and kitchen, complete an air quality test, and pay compensation.
Set out the action it had taken to address the issue, which included 2 inspections, installing a carbon monoxide detector, and sampling the dust deposits. It noted that no unusual substances had been identified.
Noted the resident had rejected its offer to move and her belongings on a temporary basis, so it could arrange a thorough clean of the property. It confirmed that a deep clean could be carried out with the resident in occupation but this was unlikely to be as effective.
Said it had decided not to issue any air purifiers because the cause of the problem had not been identified and there was nothing to suggest an air purifier would provide the required solution. But said it was exploring the feasibility / usefulness of carrying out an air quality survey.
Explained that the resident could progress a public liability claim through its insurer in relation to the damage caused.
Provided some commentary concerning its complaint handling.
Concluded that it had followed its repairs processes and had identified no failings. But accepted the situation was not ideal and said it would continue working with the resident to resolve the issue.

The resident emailed the landlord several times between 19 October 2024 and 22 November 2024 expressing her continued dissatisfaction. In summary, the resident:
1. Said the landlord had not followed its complaints process.
2. Suggested the landlord had ignored requests from its own staff, to provide air purifiers, which she said had been offered to her on several occasions and then recanted.
3. Said the landlord had ignored recommendations from the local authority environmental health team and its own operatives to carry out an air quality survey.
4. Expressed concern about the landlord’s refusal to carry out further environmental cleans after the “one deep clean”. And that it was unwilling to redecorate the property afterwards, to make good.
5. Said she should not be expected to go through the landlord’s insurers to put right damage to her personal belongings, caused by the soot-like substance.
6. Said the landlord should provide a financial settlement to enable her to engage her own cleaning company, have the property repainted, replace her damaged personal belongings, and allow her to purchase an air purifier. She suggested the landlord should progress the air quality survey.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction on 25 November 2024. It issued the stage 2 complaint response on 2 January 2025. The landlord:
1. Accepted there were failings its handling of the complaint.
2. Refuted that it had ignored recommendations made by the local authority environmental health team.
3. Accepted that its contractor had recommended it provide an air purifier. But explained its contractor had been unable to confirm this would have any effect. So, considered the best option was to have the property fully cleaned and then monitor for 6 months. It clarified, if the soot-like substance returned, it would have taken further steps as appropriate.
4. Noted the resident had not agreed to the environmental clean because it had not agreed to gift her an air purifier and because it could not reassure her that the soot-like substance would not return. It said that it was not in a position to provide such reassurance, as the tests results had been inconclusive.
5. Stated that it had now instructed an air quality survey and it was willing to arrange an environmental clean of the property following this, if she wished.
6. Said it had not identified a need to redecorate when it last inspected. But said it would re-evaluate its position once the root cause of the issue was identified.
7. Explained that residents should have their own contents insurance to cover any damages. But clarified, that residents may also submit a claim for damages through its own insurers.
8. Offered £350 compensation, which comprised:

i. £300 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience cause to the resident, by the time taken it had taken to resolve the matter of complaint.

ii. £50 compensation, for its delay in responding to the complaint.

The landlord carried out a case review in July 2025 after we accepted the complaint for investigation. The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 July 2025 with the outcome of its review. In summary, the landlord:
1. Explained the case was complex and required specialist assistance, with some appropriate due diligence to ensure thorough investigations. But said it was satisfied that all issues were adequately addressed during the complaints process.
2. Accepted there was sometime between the issue being initially reported and the air quality survey findings being provided. But suggested this was mitigated in part by issues with access.
3. Offered an additional £400 compensation, on top of the compensation it had previously offered, “in recognition of the lengthy timeframe and the inconvenience caused” to the resident and her household.
The resident did not accept the landlord’s final position. She said there was no mitigation for the time the process had taken and for the way the landlord had conducted itself.
The resident told us on 16 September 2025 that the problem with the soot-like substance had lessened. She said she doubted the cause of the issue would ever be identified. Although she said she had heard of a third property within a different part of the building, which may have recently developed a similar issue. The resident said the landlord should provide her with a financial settlement, to get the property professionally cleaned and redecorated. And suggested the landlord should gift her an air purifier.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to investigate and address the cause of a soot–like substance throughout the property

The landlord has a statutory obligation under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation Act) 2018, to ensure that the properties its rents are safe, healthy, and free from hazards that could cause serious harm at the beginning and throughout the tenancy. This includes harm from non-microbial pollutants, which can have varying health effects.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that where a hazard or risk is identified, it will address any works needed, according to the appropriate repairs priority. The landlord will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours to make safe or carry out a temporary repair. The landlord defines an emergency repair as one that presents an immediate danger to the resident, the public or the property, or would jeopardise the health, safety, or security of the resident. Non-emergency repairs will be completed as soon as possible, within 28 days.
The resident maintains that she first reported a soot like substance in the property to the landlord in December 2023. However, the first report we have seen was on 8 January 2024. The landlord attended the property on 6 February 2024 to investigate, which suggests the landlord was treating the matter as a non-emergency repair. We accept that this issue was unlikely to have presented an immediate threat to the resident’s health. But given her diagnosis, it may have been reasonable for the resident to have expected the landlord to have attended in a timelier manner. This was a shortcoming. As the landlord could not identify an immediate cause of the soot like substance, it requested further inspection, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord’s surveyour attended in a timely manner on 13 February 2024. But again, was unable to identify any obvious cause for the soot-like substance. However, it did arrange for a battery-operated carbon monoxide detector to be installed in the property, as a precaution. This was later fitted on 19 February 2024 within expected timescales.
The landlord’s surveyour proactively contacted the resident on 16 February 2024 suggesting she try using anti-static cleaning products to reduce air particulates sticking to surfaces. However, it did not commit to a course of action to monitor or identify where the substance was coming from, which would have been reasonable given the cause of the issue was not yet known. The resident states that it did suggest she contact the local authority environmental health team for their insight, which she did in March 2024. However, the landlord could have contacted the local authority itself if it felt they could be of assistance. This would have been more supportive.
The landlord’s records are then silent until the end of April 2024 when a senior manager of the landlord inspected the property, which suggests the case was escalated. As it is unclear what prompted this, this was poor record keeping. But this was likely to have been encouraging for the resident.
The landlord’s senior manager noted that the property was adjacent to a busy road but it was not near to a main line station. It identified there had been a fire in the building previously but this was some time ago (around November 2022). It identified that the property did not have a boiler, as the building had a communal gas fired heating system. It noted that there was no communal ventilation system or warm air ducts. And the resident had said she did not burn candles or oils in the property. The landlord’s senior manager was at a loss as to what might be causing the issue, so appointed a specialist contractor to investigate further. This was a reasonable course of action for the landlord to have taken in the circumstances and shows that it was treating the resident’s concerns with the attention they deserved.
The landlord’s specialist contractor attended the property in early May 2024 to inspect the property and obtain samples of the soot-like substance for testing. It was unfortunate that the results were inconclusive. We acknowledge the resident questioned the competence of the member of staff who collected these samples. So, it was positive that the landlord’s specialist contractor arranged for a laboratory technician to attend in June 2024 to collect additional samples. We note the resident was more confident with how these samples were gathered.
The landlord’s specialist contractor provided the landlord with the results of the second round of sampling in July 2023. The results did not reveal any unusual substances and suggested that cigarette smoke was “a likely contributory factor”.
The landlord offered to move the resident and her husband into an upstairs guest room in August 2024, so it could carry out an environmental clean of the property and personal belongings. The landlord’s proposal was reasonable, given that it had been unable to identify any defect with the property and would have mitigated any potential hazards. We note the resident was concerned about the inconvenience the move might cause, so declined its offer. This was understandable given the vulnerabilities in the household, when noting the guest room was on an upper floor and there was no lift.
The landlord and resident communicated throughout September 2024 about potential next steps. The landlord offered to clean the property while the resident was in occupation, which was a reasonable compromise. However, the resident said she would not agree to any cleaning unless the landlord provided assurance that it would:
1. Revisit when the soot like substance returned.
2. That it would repaint the property after the property was cleaned.
3. That it would compensate for damage to her personal belongings.
4. That would provide air purifiers.
We note the resident had expressed continued dissatisfaction throughout the timeframe of the complaint, that the landlord had not provided her with any air purifiers, despite recommendations made by several members of its own staff and its specialist contractor.
The landlord did not dispute in the stage 2 complaint response, that its contractor had recommended air purifiers as a possible course of action. But said its contractor had been unable to confirm that air purifiers would have any effect. So, decided a better course of action would be to carry out an environmental clean and then monitor if the substance returned. We acknowledge the resident felt the landlord’s decision was unfair. It was unfortunate that the resident’s expectations had been raised. But the landlord was not obliged to supply air purifiers if it felt there was a more appropriate course of action.
The landlord contacted the resident in October 2024 to try to progress the cleaning. The resident suggested they were at stalemate as it had not agreed to all of her terms. But she did agree to its cleaning contractor attending, so it could obtain a quotation. The landlord’s cleaning contractor attended the property towards the end of October 2024 to determine the level of works required. The landlord’s records are silent as to what happened next. But the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response suggests the landlord believed the parties were still at an impasse.
The landlord’s records indicate that it began exploring the merits of carrying out an air quality survey towards the end of October 2024 and sought a quotation from its specialist contractor. It made follow on enquiries with its contractor in November 2024 after the quotation was received. The landlord had reservations about progressing the air quality survey. This was because its contractor could not confirm this would provide any real answers, over and above what had been determined already, from the samples previously analysed. This was understandable.
However, the landlord did not make any further commitments of action, until it issued the stage 2 complaint response on 2 January 2025, when it:
1. Said it would carry out an air quality survey, followed by a full environmental clean if the resident wanted. This was likely to have been positive news for the resident.
2. Clarified that it did not consider the property warranted redecorate from its own observations. But committed to reconsider its position once the root cause of the issue had been identified. This was fair.
3. Suggested the resident make a claim on her own contents insurance or via its own insurer, in relation to damage caused to her personal belongings. This was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy.
4. Offered £300 compensation in recognition of the time it had taken to resolve the issue. And for the inconvenience and disruption caused to the resident and her household, when taking into consideration their vulnerabilities. The landlord’s offer of compensation was within the range we would award(according to our remedies guidance), where there have been failings, which had adversely affected the resident.
The air quality survey was completed on 18 February 2025, which was nearly 7 weeks after issue of the stage 2 complaint response. However, the speed at which this appointment could be arranged was largely dependent on the resident’s own availability and that of her neighbour. Therefore, this was not entirely within the landlord’s control. Ultimately, the laboratory report did not highlight any immediate cause for concern from the air samples taken. And supported the earlier findings, that smoking was the most likely cause of the surface contamination within the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the evidence provided to it by its specialists.
It is evident that the resident felt the landlord should have completed an air quality survey at a much earlier stage, following advice she was given by the local authority environmental health team in March 2024. We cannot verify when the resident first asked the landlord to complete an air quality survey. But we note the local authority inspected the property in May 2024 and was satisfied with the action the landlord was taking, which at that time involved analysing samples of the substance. It is reasonable to conclude that the local authority would have told the landlord if they felt that an air quality survey was necessary.
Overall, the landlord took reasonable steps to investigate and address the cause of the soot like substance in the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the evidence provided to it by its specialists, which ultimately concluded, the most likely cause of the soot-like substance was from smoking rather than a defect with the property.
There were times that the landlord could have progressed its investigation with more urgency, given the resident’s vulnerabilities and its obligation to keep the property free of hazards arising from potential defects with the property. The landlord did recognise this itself in the stage 2 complaint response, for which it made a reasonable offer redress.
On balance, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to investigate and address the cause of a soot-like substance throughout the property.
We note the landlord increased its offer of compensation upon review, which took into account events that happened after issue of the stage 2 complaint response. A recommendation is made later, concerning payment of compensation.
We were unable to verify the resident’s account that a third property had developed similar issues, in a different part of the building. But it would be prudent for the landlord check its repairs records to establish if this is the case. If similar reports are identified, it should consider the merits of carrying out a wider investigation.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord had a 2-stage complaint policy. The landlord will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and will provide the full stage 1 complaint response with 10 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord will acknowledge stage 2 complaints within 5 working days and will provide the full stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord may extend these response times if it finds it needs more time, by an additional 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The neighbour wrote to the landlord on 19 April 2024 and 7 May 2024 on behalf of themselves and the resident, expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of their reports of a soot-like substance in both their properties. The landlord committed to investigate the cause of this but it did not log their dissatisfaction as a formal complaint. This was inappropriate.
The landlord suggested to the resident within its complaint response, that had the resident contacted it directly, it would have communicated with her and not the neighbour. It said this was in accordance with its complaints and data protection policies. However, the landlord’s complaints policy does not explain its approach to group complaints. It is possible that the landlord was referring to complaints received through petitions, which states the landlord “will take into account the individual circumstance of all signers, but will only respond to the first signers”. Nevertheless, the landlord did recognise that it had initially mishandled the initial complaint. But it did not consider the likely distress and inconvenience that was caused the resident.
The landlord issued the stage 1 complaint response on 14 October 2024 following intervention from us. The resident told the landlord that she remained dissatisfied with its response and would provide her reasons for this in due course. The resident provided her final position on the matter to the landlord on 22 November 2024. The landlord then sent the stage 2 acknowledgement on 25 November 2024, which was within expected response timescales.
The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response 25 working days later, which was just outside the landlord’s expected response timescales. The landlord did not tell the resident that it needed an extension. However, the landlord did itself recognise in the stage 2 complaint response, that there had been complaint handling delay and offered £50 compensation. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord was proportionate to the failing.
It was positive that the landlord carried out a case review in July 2025 after we accepted the complaint for investigation. This demonstrates the landlord’s commitment to learning from complaint outcomes.
In summary, the landlord recognised there were failings in its complaint handling and made an offer of redress. However, the landlord’s offer of compensation does not fully reflect the impact to the resident arising from all of the failings we identified.
Therefore, on balance, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
To remedy the complaint, the landlord must pay £100 compensation, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. This compensation may be reduced to £50 if the landlord has already paid the £50 compensation it previously offered the resident at stage 2. Our remedies guidance suggests awards in this range, where there had been failings, which the landlord did not put fully right.
The landlord should consider the merits of expanding its complaints policy, so its approach to group complaints clear.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to investigate and address the cause of a soot-like substance throughout the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must pay £100 compensation directly to the resident, in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. This compensation may be reduced to £50 if the landlord has already paid the £50 compensation it previously offered the resident at stage 2.
The landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has complied with the above order, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

We recommend the landlord:
1. Pay the £700 compensation it previously offered the resident upon its review (if it has not already done so), in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by failings in its handling of the resident’s request to investigate and address the cause of a soot-like substance throughout the property.
2. Check its repairs records to establish if it has received any other reports about a soot-like substance in any other property within the building. If similar reports are identified, it should consider the merits of carrying out a wider investigation.
3. Consider expanding its complaints policy, so its approach to group complaints clear.